ROTFLMAO NO prime of same cost is ever going to underperform a zoom of same cost, they do less, but do what they do better,
I say this is hogwash unless you are picking out very cheapo primes vs very expensive zooms. To be fair, you need to compare lenses of same general cost/quality. DUH. The whole zoom feature adds a massive amount the the optical design that isnt needed for a prime so for same cost the prime will do better at what it does. JC OCONNELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA Actually, Superwide zooms these days often exceed the performance of primes, look at Nikon's recent 14-24mm f2.8, which matches or exceeds any prime in its range except the Zeiss C/Y mount 21mm Distagon, their older 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S is nearly as good, outmatching pretty much any lens in its range except for the exotic German glass. Wider than 20mm, nothing can touch the Nikkor 14-24. Nikon's 200-400 f4 VR is similar in being able to match or exceed prime performance. Of course, either of these lenses is a significant investment ($1800 for the 14-24, $6000 for the 200-400). -Adam On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In general I have found that most telezooms are softer > at the long end than the short end and most primes > at the same focal length as the long end of zoom > will easily beat the zoom at the long end. For this reason, I try to > avoid telezooms ( and wide zooms, and extended range zooms for that > matter ). > > For some reason, the closer you get to "normal lenses" > in focal length, the better zooms do, but super wide > OR super long zooms, no go! > > JC OCONNELL > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Toine > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:26 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA > > > I sold my 80-320 to finance this lba. My only problem with the 80-320 > was lens creep while walking. Corner sharpness is a little better on > the 80-320 which isn't a surprise for a FA lens. Contrast and image > quality at 300 is better with the 55-300. At the wide end the 80-320 > has very good image quality, maybe the best of the two. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
